If Scheduled Tribes can be exempted from a constitutionally approved bill, why can’t Muslims be?
Any law against Shariah and Religion is not acceptable for us: Maulana Arshad Madani
Staff Reporter / NEW DELHI
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind led by Maulana Arshad Madani has decided to challenge the Uttarakhand government’s decision to implement Uniform Civil Code UCC in both the Nainital High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Uniform Civil Code has been implemented in Uttarakhand from today. By doing so, not only has there been an assault on citizens’ religious freedom, but this law is also based entirely on discrimination and bias says Maulana Arshad Madani
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’s lawyers have thoroughly examined the constitutional and legal aspects of this law. The organization believes that since this law is based on discrimination and bias, it cannot be called a Uniform Civil Code. Another important question that arises is whether a state government has the authority to enact such legislation.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind chief expressed strong reaction to this discriminated order of the state government to implement the uniform civil code (UCC) in Uttarakhand, and said that we cannot accept any law that is against Shariah. Because a Muslim can compromise with everything, he can never compromise with his Shariah and religion.
He said that the Uniform Civil Code law implemented in Uttarakhand today has exempted Scheduled Tribes under Article 366, Clause 25 of the Indian Constitution, and it has been argued that their rights are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Uttarakhand rolls out Uniform Civil Code
Maulana Madani questioned that if Scheduled Tribes can be kept apart from this law under one section of the Constitution, then why religious freedom cannot be given to us under Sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution, recognizing the fundamental rights of citizens. Religious freedom is guaranteed; thus, the Uniform Civil Code negates fundamental rights.
If it is uniform civil code then why this distinction between citizens? He also said that our legal team has reviewed the legal aspects of the law and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind is going to challenge this decision simultaneously in the Nainital High Court and the Supreme Court.
The truth is that a follower of any religion cannot tolerate any undue interference in their religious affairs. He said that in a pluralistic country like India, where followers of different religions have been practicing their beliefs, religious practices and customs with complete freedom for centuries, the implementation of uniform civil code is in conflict with the fundamental rights given to citizens in the constitution.
The question is not about the personal law of Muslims, but about keeping the country’s secular constitution in its position, because India is a secular country and the meaning of secularism in the constitution is that the country has no religion of its own. So uniform civil code is not acceptable for Muslims and it is also detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country.
He added that for the implementation of Uniform Civil Code, Article 44 is presented as evidence and it is propagated that Uniform Civil Code is mentioned in the Constitution while Article 44 is not in directive principles, but it is a suggestion. But there is no mention of Articles 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution in which religious freedom is guaranteed while recognizing the fundamental rights of citizens. In light of this, the Uniform Civil Code negates fundamental rights, yet our government says that one country shall have one law and that there cannot be two laws in one house. It’s a strange thing.
The provisions of IPC, CRPC here are not uniform in the whole country, its nature changes in the states, the Cow Slaughter law in the country is not even the same law, it is not enforced in five states. About the reservation in the country, the Supreme Court has fixed its limit at 50%, but more than 50% reservation has been given in various states.
He questioned that when the civil law is not the same in the whole country, then why do they insist on applying a family law throughout the country? Our country is a multi-cultural and multi-religious country, this is also its characteristic, so one law cannot work here.
Those who blindly advocate Article 44, they forget that under the same section it has been said and suggested that alcohol should be banned in the entire country, the gap between the rich and the poor should be eliminated, why is the government not doing this? Isn’t it necessary?
The question is that why does the government refrain from doing things on which no one disagrees and which can be acceptable to all? On the other hand, what is controversial is made an issue and labeled as a constitution.
Maulana Madani said that we want to make it clear that our family laws are not man-made laws, they are derived from the Holy Qur’an and Hadith. There can be jurisprudential (according to Fiqh) debates on this, but we do not have any disagreement on the fundamentals.
Maulana Madani said that it seems quite correct to say that the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code is a deliberate conspiracy to restrict the religious freedom of the citizens.
He also said that the sectarian forces want to keep the country’s minorities, especially Muslims, in constant fear and chaos by creating new emotional and religious issues, but Muslims should not go through any kind of fear and chaos.
As long as there are just people available in the country, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind will continue its war against these forces, which are not only a great threat to the unity and integrity of the country, but also they seek to divide the society on the basis of prejudice.
He said that love has been inculcated in the soil of this country for thousands of years, not hatred. Hate can be said to be successful for some time, but we are sure that the final and certain victory will be for love.